search

ncbo / ontologies_linked_data

Models and serializers for ontologies and related artifacts backed by 4store
Other
17 stars 8 forks source link

Augment available metadata for various models #192

Open jvendetti opened 4 months ago

jvendetti commented 4 months ago

Context

In order to accomplish various pieces of work for the BioPortal U24 grant, we need to incorporate more metadata for some of the models in this library. Some examples:

In addition, Mark Musen expressed a desire to move towards the ability to say that BioPortal is compliant with a metadata standard. Should this be MOD?

See Also

jonquet commented 4 months ago

Adopting MOD would be perfect. Now MOD is developed within FAIR-IMPACT and the version 3 that will be properly an extension of DCAT2 will be published soon.

In 2017 we worked in MOD1.2 then 1.4 in parallel. See: https://hal-lirmm.ccsd.cnrs.fr/lirmm-01852080 Any new properties added to the model were taken from MOD1.4 but for the properties (the one BioPortal already provided) were not changed for backward compatibility.

Now I have no problem to say that we are "compliant with MOD" because we have a property field that is 85% (to be verified) the one "sugegsted" by MOD and we have a property for each of the 128 properties MOD suggest. But if you do call our service, the JSON-LD returned is not fully pure MOD.

We are currently revisiting this to be able to change our metadata exports and have them respect multiple profiles: DCAT/DC, Schema.org, Datacite, ... and MOD3. The profile that will return the maximum number of properties (hence the maximum level of details/information for an ontology) will both be the "AgroPortal default" and the MOD one.

If all OntoPortal move to MOD2 (or 3) and assume a non backward compatibility change, then yes, we should go for MOD. But ... if MOD change again we are goiung to change our backend each time... so I am more building on the exports mechanism now.

jvendetti commented 4 months ago

@jonquet - based on your comments above, I find the "Versions" section of the MOD README.md file confusing. It lists MOD 1.4 as the stable version, characterizes 2.0 as "alpha", and 2.1 as "under discussion". But above you're talking about verson 3.

What version is considered the latest stable version?

Given limited developer resources, the idea of having to maintain backward compatibility is less appealing to me, though we've not discussed this internally.

jonquet commented 4 months ago

You're right.. originally v3 being prepared by/with @agbeltran was called v2.1. Now we call it v3.

The main difference between v1.4 and v2 is the model (v2 was the first version based on DCAT, v3 will be more stable for this aspect) and the re-adoption of many properties within the mod namespace.

Properties will not change between v2 and v3. So you're good looking into v2.